Assimilation
Etymologically, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word Assimilation comes
from Old French assimilacion, from Latin assimilationem (nom. assimilatio)
"likeness, similarity"
Here, I describe cultural and political Assimilation as the ways in which groups of people who are politically and materially disadvantaged/marginalised (e.g. new migrants, colonised people) within a broader polity start to adopt the customs, language, and political ideals of dominant groups. To achieve as much as possible within existing normative frameworks of citizenship.
I describe Assimilationism as ways in which Assimilation becomes concretised as a goal for politically and materially disadvantaged/marginalised groups of people. In other words, the goal of Assimilationism is not to challenge the dialectic of Assimilation nor to critique normative frameworks, but rather to succeed within them. To become "like" and "similar to" the dominant.
For a long time, I have self-described as "Anti-assimilationist". Anti-assimilationism is itself one possible attitudinal position I could take within a multicultural perspective. In other words, for me, and for a long time, the goal was for these individuals and groups of people to explore self-determination and develop their own frameworks and notions of success and community, beyond normative ideals, and capitulation to the demands of the dominant.
All that said, my stance has shifted somewhat...
Integration
Etymologically, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word Integration comes
from French intégration and directly from Latin integrationem (nom. integratio)
"renewal, restoration"
Here, I describe Integration as the ways in which individuals and groups of people, both those of us who are politically and materially disadvantaged/marginalised AND those of us who are privileged beneficiaries of our enfranchisement/citizenship actually shape one another.
I would thus describe Integrationism partially as the way that this process of shaping one another (both the dominant and marginal groups) becomes more aspirational, and indicative at least of the possibility for "renewal" and "restoration" of one another in this very shaping. One example could be the ways in which asylum seekers, through participation in broader host cultures, experience a "renewal" and "restoration" of their own self-capacity to maintain traditions or livelihood that would have been politically dangerous or unfeasible in their countries of origin, and simultaneously, that the host culture necessarily enlarges its own capacity to literally hold "the Other" within its self-concept.
Integration is also where the "Centre" and its "Periphery" (Other) both dissolve; are integrated.
Integration, from a few perspectives
In a sense, an Integrationist approach also includes the possibility of the Anti-assimilationist perspective. After all, the very frameworks of "self-determination" and "community" and so on require at the very least:
1. An inculcation into these values as part of an existent political possibility within the diversity of normative political frameworks within a polity.
2. A common language with which people can communicate with one another on these, and thus be also recognised by others as doing and enacting these very values.
When I am in a room full of other people of colour in Australia, as one example, communicating Anti-assimilationist viewpoints, the other presumption is that we are already integrated enough in existing normative frameworks that we could, for example, choose to speak with one another in English (which likely was not the mother tongue of many of our immediate families/ancestors).
With English as an inherited colonial language, which has also become my lingua franca (for better or for worse) in communicating political ideals, it necessarily means that all ideals are communicated within the liberational potential and limitations of that language. In other words, all ideals, along with the colonial English language medium itself, are "integrated" in their very expression, as well as in their intelligibility and coherence to others.
The other point here then, is that an Integrationist approach would also, by necessity, include an Assimilationist approach. In that: I have assimilated enough of normative cultural expectations of me (to, for example, engage the dominant political system, or to speak its language simply to survive), that I am enabled to then also challenge assimilation.
The "Problem" with Integrationism
For strict Assimilationists, Integration is unintelligible, and likely extremely confronting, to choose to hold onto value systems that are not kindly regarded within dominant society. Why choose to fight that battle, when you can play the existing game well and see enough role models of "success" that you could then escape conditions of bare survival? Here, Integration would be likely conflated with Anti-assimilationism, and disregarded as elitist.
For strict Anti-assimilationists, it is likely to be perceived as a cop-out to allow for political engagement to rest on the ways we have already assimilated... Far more viable, particularly for vulnerable and marginalised communities, to focus on the ways that dominant culture has to become more accomodating of difference and diversity, than to acknowledge that this very demand for accomodation is precisely a negotiation which, at its most powerful, compelling, and creative, involves mutuality in transformation and change. Integration would be conflated with Assimilation (the demand strictly for the marginalised person/group to change) and may be disregarded as "scab"-ish.
Another problem here as well is that the term "integration" is often used as synonymous with "assimilation" (so that to "integrate someone/a community" is equivalent to saying to "assimilate someone/a community into dominant society['s norms and values]".
Within an Integrationist perspective, Integration would also have to account for accomodating and integrating its very negation. In other words, a polity which is truly pluralistic and with the potential for integration of large groups of incredibly diverse and sometimes seemingly paradoxical cultural drives, must necessarily accomodate both Assimilationist and Anti-Assimilationist criticisms of Integration, while also necessarily protecting the sanctity of this very accommodational drive which conditions the possibility that such divergent views can even be in dialogue with one another.
In other words, not that X (marginal-individual/community) is "integrated into" Y (dominant/hegemonic-culture/community), but rather:
X & Y are integrated
Integration, Again
This very accommodation of divergent views, therefore, and indeed, the ability for a polity not only to "wrestle" with divergent views, but also to "accommodate" them (while strictly protecting the sanctity of the freedom for accomodation) is the very expression of Integrationism...
** Note: I have throughout this essay meant the word "accommodate" to connote "provide shelter for", rather than its other possible connotation of "merely tolerate"
In other words, Integrationism is not necessarily a "view within" or a "perspective on", but is an "orientation to" cultural politics. It is also a dialectical process that does not belong either exclusively to hegemonic groups nor to marginalised groups.
To "integrate" is to breathe with one another, to hold one another's views, to make room for them, to sleep on them, to make decisions of mutual benefit and with sincerity and a baseline recognition of our common humanity and common drive to alleviate our suffering in our lives.
Integrationism, to me, thus necessarily moves beyond the discursive... into the breath, the body, the bodily tensions and releases which are themselves "digestive" and integrative of diversity and universalism, divergence and convergence.
No comments:
Post a Comment